What Data is Needed to Understand the Formation of Black Hole Jets?

[Discord7]

Some more recent artistic depicts seem to emphasize more of a polarity to jet depiction (and formation)?

If by "polarity" you mean magnetic, there sure is plenty right there exactly where the black hole would put it if it could. A heck of a big rotating accretion disk with an awful big positive charge accounts for it. The resulting field is in the same place and of the same shape as the one fancied for the black hole. The only charged particles available to the black hole are negative. But whatever, the few that enter a black hole from the "north" would present magnetic field that is canceled out very nicely by equivalent electron count coming from the "south".

If by, "polarity" you mean electrical polarity, only the positive and negative electrical polarities have been mentioned here. There is plenty of that. A rotating, growing, gigantic disk of mostly protons functions to align electrons into a fine string on either side of the black hole to present just the architecture required for one horrendous electron gun.

The kernel of this solution is to see that a charged particle contained by a sphere or disk will greedily seek out the greater attraction from beyond the center (until it gets to the center). Tendencies to incorrectly factor in range as a determining factor might account for erroneous supposition to the contrary: Increased scope of particle count mounts up faster with distance than the associated particle field attenuation within such enclosures. On the other hand, experience with electricity leads to valid expectations.

 

[twofish-quant]

If by "polarity" you mean magnetic, there sure is plenty right there exactly where the black hole would put it if it could. A heck of a big rotating accretion disk with an awful big positive charge accounts for it. The resulting field is in the same place and of the same shape as the one fancied for the black hole. The only charged particles available to the black hole are negative. But whatever, the few that enter a black hole from the "north" would present magnetic field that is canceled out very nicely by equivalent electron count coming from the "south".

If by, "polarity" you mean electrical polarity, only the positive and negative electrical polarities have been mentioned here. There is plenty of that. A rotating, growing, gigantic disk of mostly protons functions to align electrons into a fine string on either side of the black hole to present just the architecture required for one horrendous electron gun.

The kernel of this solution is to see that a charged particle contained by a sphere or disk will greedily seek out the greater attraction from beyond the center (until it gets to the center). Tendencies to incorrectly factor in range as a determining factor might account for erroneous supposition to the contrary: Increased scope of particle count mounts up faster with distance than the associated particle field attenuation within such enclosures. On the other hand, experience with electricity leads to valid expectations.

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. If you are interested in knowing why this is gibberish, we can continue the discussion further. If not, then I'll leave this as a warning for anyone else that is joining the thread, and I'll spend my time in more interesting threads.

 

[Discord7]

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. If you are interested in knowing why this is gibberish, we can continue the discussion further. If not, then I'll leave this as a warning for anyone else that is joining the thread, and I'll spend my time in more interesting threads.

I am most interested in learning why you consider it gibberish. It does sorrow me that you express your reply as though you might not accept any clarification I might find to improve on my failure to communicate.

 

[twofish-quant]

I am most interested in learning why you consider it gibberish.

It is very hard for an astrophysical fluid to maintain a charge. If you have a positively charged fluid, it vary quickly attracts negative charges, and so the charge goes to zero.

Astrophysical fluids don't separate into protons and electrons, because the coloumb force is just too large.

It does sorrow me that you express your reply as though you might not accept any clarification I might find to improve on my failure to communicate.

I'm trying to figure out if there is anything here to communicate.

What are you trying to do?

If you are trying to explain to someone about current models of how black holes and accretion disks work, then you've just got it wrong.

If you have your own model for black hole jets, and there is nothing that I can realistically say to convince you that you are wrong, then I really don't see anything to communicate here.

 

[Discord7]

It is very hard for an astrophysical fluid to maintain a charge. If you have a positively charged fluid, it vary quickly attracts negative charges, and so the charge goes to zero.

Astrophysical fluids don't separate into protons and electrons, because the coloumb force is just too large.

What you say applies to microscopic neutralization of electrical charge. It represents an exothermic process that results then in a deenergizing phenomenon, hence a return to a stable condition.

To the extent that an astronomical body is an isolated parcel of matter, then a plurality of electrical particles of one polarity over the other should present a stable situation whereby the body would possesses an electrical charge distributed upon its outer surface. (There would simply be no available particles of the opposite to accomplish an overall neutralizing effect.)

Granting a fluid spherical body so possessed of a negative charge, introduction of an additional electron within it should find a repulsive force that would move it outward toward the outer surface. If an ionizing event were to separate an electron from a hydrogen atom by great enough distance, the force of attraction toward the resulting positive ion could become less than the global force of repulsion upon that electron. In such case, the electron would rise toward the surface and the proton would descend toward the global center. Those migrations would qualify as exothermic events thus representing what we might call a macroscopic discharge for the ion. As a result, a positive central core would develop and the negative shell of electrons would be augmented accordingly.

Please specify where I might be technically incorrect or where I should improve my attempt to explain macroscopic discharge as an alternative achievement of stable formations.

 

[twofish-quant]

What you say applies to microscopic neutralization of electrical charge. It represents an exothermic process that results then in a deenergizing phenomenon, hence a return to a stable condition.

You are inventing your own physics. If you are interested, I can explain why your physics doesn't work, but I don't think you are interested so I don't quite see the point of this discussion.

Please specify where I might be technically incorrect or where I should improve my attempt to explain macroscopic discharge as an alternative achievement of stable formations.

As far as we can tell, the total charge balance of the universe is zero. If you have an electrically charged body, then electromagnetism is strong enough (i.e. 10^40 time stronger than gravity) so that the moment you have a charged object in space it is going to attract things of the opposite charge to cancel out.

This isn't going to work...

To the extent that an astronomical body is an isolated parcel of matter...

It's not. But ignoring that...

Granting a fluid spherical body so possessed of a negative charge, introduction of an additional electron within it should find a repulsive force that would move it outward toward the outer surface.

Wrong direction. If there is negative charge in the surface, then the repulsive force should keep it away from the surface. But even if that worked...

If an ionizing event were to separate an electron from a hydrogen atom by great enough distance, the force of attraction toward the resulting positive ion could become less than the global force of repulsion upon that electron.

If things are random then you would end up with the positive charges being closer and the negative charges being further, and so that won't work...

In such case, the electron would rise toward the surface and the proton would descend toward the global center. Those migrations would qualify as exothermic events thus representing what we might call a macroscopic discharge for the ion.

Exothemic doesn't apply...

As a result, a positive central core would develop and the negative shell of electrons would be augmented accordingly.

And even if all of that worked, you are still no where near a jet...

There are so many things wrong with this idea, that I don't think it's viable. If you want to spend your time working on ideas that just won't work, then that's fine, but I don't see why you'd want to talk to me about this...

 

[Discord7]

Wrong direction. If there is negative charge in the surface, then the repulsive force should keep it away from the surface. But even if that worked...

That is a comment detailed enough for me to understand. I am grateful for that. If you agree that your comment states that an electron inserted into the space of a negatively charged fluid sphere will be repelled toward the center of that sphere, then we have nothing to argue about because one of us is dead wrong on that point. I do not believe that there is any way to comprehend polar jets, lightning, or SMBHs without the fundamental phenomena that I am attempting to share. If you can show me how I am wrong, then you will be liberating me from a folly that has been consuming what little time I have remaining now in my advance years. Please, if you can, give an old goat the break of a fair chance!

My presumption that an additional electron will propagate outward in such a case is due to my interpretation of the work of Michael Faraday.

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/faradaypail/index.html

My reasoning was that such an electron at any location except dead center or upon the outer surface of such a sphere would receive more repulsion from the greater half of the sphere. That direction would be outward would it not. A proton thrust into such a sphere, barring the dynamics of any other disturbance, would see greater attraction from across the sphere's center, and would try to reach such bounty until, at the center, it would find equivalent attraction from behind. Counter-intuitively, the greater distance to the far side, with its square law attenuation, would by the corresponding increase in electron count within any solid angle you might choose. Range doesn't make a white wall dimmer unless it factors in intervening optical obstructions.

From another point of view, if our sphere were so negatively charged simply because of how many more electrons exist there, why couldn't that last visiting electron in our premise get the same chance to join the crowd instead of sulking down in the center until some proton corners it? If we rephrased the premise to speak of the very last electron to fall into place on the surface, why wasn't it rejected too? What is the difference.

I have used the term "exothermic process" to express the certainty that if a boulder rolls down a mountain, it remain down below for an awfully long time. Where no endothermic process has invested energy into a formation, it seems natural that a structure does not court collapse. Macroscopic neutralization of electrical forces compares with the microscopic neutralization encountered with de ionization.

Since you prefer to attend other issues than this, then wouldn't it be fair enough for you to tolerate my existence here long enough to be considered by folks of a different muse without imposing denigration? Your elegant stature here coupled with perhaps premature condemnation compels me to heed your demand to explain but with no welcome for me to do so.

 

[Imax]

I don’t understand how an accretion disk can produce highly collimated beams. For a spiral galaxy of about 100,000 light years across, the beam can go about 150,000 light years about an axis of rotation.

 

[Discord7]

I don’t understand how an accretion disk can produce highly collimated beams. For a spiral galaxy of about 100,000 light years across, the beam can go about 150,000 light years about an axis of rotation.

Such a beam goes along the axis of rotation. AFAIK our galaxy doesn't currently produce the polar jets. I think that is because our disk has fattened up into a galactic bulge instead to function more like a sphere than as a disk. Theoretically, were the accretion disk or bulge without electrical charge, then it would be of matter contained in continuing orbit around the black hole.

Evidence that material is converging through such a disk toward a black hole and that electrons are propelled down to its rotational axis suggests that the disk contains a congestion of free protons. Due to positive charge of the disk, positive particles rise outward, negative particles descend. The rim of such a disk would serve as a positive hoop similar in function to the focusing anode in some CRT electron guns. Each electron centers itself to a position of equidistance from all points around the hoop. This action centers all of them somewhere along the rotational axis, and mutual repulsion sends them on their way, guided to maintain that axis all the way out.

The second manifestation of the the electrical nature of an accretion disk is the delivery of matter into a black hole. A negative domain above the disk would feed our positive disk or bulge with its scraps of positive particles from an entire galaxy. As the disk or bulge grows, it captures stellar systems and withdraws the electrons for consequential descent as mentioned. Remaining matter so victimized that is ballasted with neutrons orbit lower for a given speed. Such orbits are thus encumbered by resistance against the permanent proton population, causing descent of the heavier matter. Stars don't fall to the black holes: the bulge reaches out for them. It won't get here for a long time.

 

[twofish-quant]

I do not believe that there is any way to comprehend polar jets, lightning, or SMBHs without the fundamental phenomena that I am attempting to share.

There isn't, but there really isn't any substitute toward running the numbers.

My presumption that an additional electron will propagate outward in such a case is due to my interpretation of the work of Michael Faraday.

Note that in that situation the sphere is hollow. If you have a solid conductor then all bets are off.

My reasoning was that such an electron at any location except dead center or upon the outer surface of such a sphere would receive more repulsion from the greater half of the sphere.

And if you add together the charges, you'll find that this isn't true. It's a first year physics problem.

I have used the term "exothermic process" to express the certainty that if a boulder rolls down a mountain, it remain down below for an awfully long time. Where no endothermic process has invested energy into a formation, it seems natural that a structure does not court collapse. Macroscopic neutralization of electrical forces compares with the microscopic neutralization encountered with de ionization.

Exothermic means releases energy.

Since you prefer to attend other issues than this, then wouldn't it be fair enough for you to tolerate my existence here long enough to be considered by folks of a different muse without imposing denigration?

Wrong is wrong. If you think that you are right, you can put together some arguments arguing your point.

 

[Lost in Space]

Why can't we see all the objects that have fell or are falling into the black holes? Shouldn't they all be visilble and static on the EH due to relativistic time differences between us the observers and them? Another problem is the jets. If light can't escape from the influence of a black hole is the gravitational field at the poles much weaker to enable these jets to form? I can appreciate that a powerful magnetic field might propagate such jets but then, wouldn't it have to be far greater than the gravitational field that was pulling things in?

 

[Discord7]

Another problem is the jets. If light can't escape from the influence of a black hole is the gravitational field at the poles much weaker to enable these jets to form?

No it isn't.

Trust me, not my denigrater. High class scholars have so much on their plate that they are trained not to sweat the small stuff. So they turn their backs on electrons (very small stuff) which are so quickly wed to protons that they never get to town; or so it seems to the scholars who close their books on electricity due to a universal first-glance myopia. The way I hear it, even Einstein got faked out like that when he wondered why stuff didn't stay in orbit around black holes. (But he knew it does come down.)

We depart from general consensus that is formed not from scientific evidence but merely from the cookie-cutter impact of consensus itself upon the halls of learning. It takes a slob to understand this. (We have not been so infected.) No electrons escape from a black hole. They drop down from a positively charged domain to be found above in an accretion disk. Just as a positive sphere sends electrons to its central core, a positive disk sends them down to align upon its rotational axis. (If the disk were not spinning it would not be a disk.) Mutual repulsion of the consequential strand of electrons launches them, and by the time they ever get almost out of the disk's influence, inertia has taken over for an indefinite trip down a straight track. Remember, I can support all of this if given a chance, but it took a few years for this slowpoke to noodle it out. Better you take this on borrowed indulgence, if you would, than to believe for a minute that an electron will get boosted out of a singularity. (An event horizon is a slightly different story.)

It is the disk, not the black hole that sets up a big magnetic field. But don't bother about it because magnetism plays little or no part in production of polar jets.

 

[Misericorde]

Trust twofish-quant.